[crs1026]

Would a UPE/Davenport style elevated structure be feasible on the south side through the pinch point at Main St? There would be less encroachment on Railroad Ave if the new track was supported by pillars in the center and underneath.

Widening the trackbed to add one main line on the north side seems doable (Sorry, depot, you gotta move). West of the Depot, there is clearly room for four tracks. So only one track is needed on the south side.

If the passenger operation were on the south side, the vibration would be significantly less than if there were freight on that structure. Yes, it would be tight, but at least the building wouldn't have to be abandoned.

- Paul

 

[TOareaFan]

here is the local story about what ML bought.

http://www.bramptonguardian.com/new...land-downtown-to-address-go-parking-shortage/

 

[mdrejhon]

The office building and the bus terminal are the same building. Google maps shows that there could be enough room to fit a track in, albeit the clearance would be tight. That said, would it be really that tight compared to other sites, like what's being proposed at the Davenport grade separation? So I question, again not as a civil engineer or someone experienced with CN requirements for track clearances, if you would actually need to loose that office building.

Looking again:

You could also just raze that south platform, and put a track in its place instead -- and shift the northern tracks instead to permit a center platform. This would require bridge rebuilds but would keep more distance between the southern track and the building. With a small noisewall and anti-vibration built into the railbed of a new rail bridge, you might even have similar or less vibration as today, in the existing office building, and you'd have those stairs (the south-east platform access stairs, between building and tracks) relocated into a pedestrian tunnel that leads up into a center platform.

It does mean putting a slight curve into some of the tracks, but this seems to be a "which track do I want to put a slight curve into?" pick-your-poison scenario.

I suppose we will be stuck with 3 tracks, but it would be interesting to run this scenario of simply razing the existing south platform to put a track there in its place, and use a center platform (north of southernmost track) and a north platform (with perhaps 1 through express track, 2nd from northmost). This would mean 3 berthable tracks and 1 through track, with manageable curves.

Another way to view this is you're trading space between the south platform and the southernmost track -- combined with a slight shift -- to allow one platform to access two tracks, and keep the north platform (which will need to move further northwards) from needing to become a centre platform & prevent worsening track curves to the north in a 4-track scenario.

Pros:
- 4 track corridor
- similar clearance to existing office building (track in place of south platform)
- eliminates need to build a 4th track literally flush to office building
- express track (good for freight trains, HSR or express trains)
Cons:
- complex station rebuild & service disruptions due to platform shift AND track shift
- you'll have platforms at only 3 tracks, due to trying to limit curve for northernmost track
- need of anti-vibration to compensate for tracks slightly closer to office building

I may have missed something (additional unexpected expropriations beyond those mentioned, etc) caused by curve encroachments, but if they are possibly rebuilding the station anyway, is this a feasible "compromise" scenario at all for a theoretical 4-track corridor?

 

[Allandale25]

I would recommend people do a walking tour from James St to the west and see what is on both side of the tracks and what impact a 3rd or 4th track will have on the area.

I stand by my comments based on my construction background and design knowledge, as well knowing the area.

No need to do a walking tour. I am very familiar with the area already. Great to hear you stand by your comments. I stand by my comments that I have seen public documents from GO/Metrolinx saying their studies recommend a track on the south side at Brampton GO. I'm not saying I agree with them over you, I'm just saying that I've read those reports. When I saw discussion earlier saying that a track would be put on the north side in Brampton, I simply wanted to point out the more recent documents from 2014-2015.

There really isn't a lot of office space in downtown Brampton....and the building that ML bought is the most vacant of them all......it was at committee last night and the city seems a bit a) surprised and b) upset about being surprised (ie not being told) about ML's plans to buy the building.....they have asked ML for some answers like a) what did you buy (ie. just the office building and its surface parking or any of the low end "affordable" rental houses along railroad....b) what are your plans for whatever you bought.

ML seem to be in a bit of scramble to answer the questions. Local media is also asking the same questions.

Aside from not liking being kept in the dark, the city is expressing concerns about a) tax assessment....a parking lot generates less tax for the city compared to an office building......and if the parking lot is gov't owned it would not generate any direct tax and some sort of PILT would need to be negotiated (the PILT bit is my observation, not sure the city has figured that out)....b) what effect does losing that building have on Brampton's Places to Grow targets for density......c) if the houses are included in the purchase...what does that mean for the tenants living in them.

They have not, yet, figured out that having a free parking structure south of the tracks will eat into their own parking revenues on the 4 enclosed parking garages they operate.......but I am sure they will.

Sorry, what's a "PILT"? Thanks for the additional opinion on the office situation. I don't see the need for a scramble. It's not like any construction on the site can happen overnight. There's lots of time for dialogue and I'm sure there are people who try to park at Brampton GO who are happy something might happen.

Is there any indication that office building would even need to come down? Wouldn't a first step be to pave the open spaces, and leave the office building up and maybe the houses? Even if the houses come down, wouldn't they just keep the office building up? Maybe they could build a parking structure, at the same height, attached and around the office building. By "They have not, yet, figured out that having a free parking structure south of the tracks will eat into their own parking revenues on the 4 enclosed parking garages they operate" you mean the City of Brampton, right? I guess it'll be interesting to see how much of a issue this is. My understanding is that the City-owned parking lots are already under capacity and free at various times (like the one under City Hall), so I really question how much money the City will loose. Also, even if it does loose money, I'm sure there are people who use the GO train and can't find a place to park who would argue that they'd don't mind.

Sean Marshall made a good point about GO and parking (he also grew up in Brampton). I'm sure some will disagree:

Metrolinx bought nine properties in Downtown Brampton, including an office building and at least one rooming house, in order to build another GO Transit parking lot. I've said it before and I'll say it again: GO has a parking problem. And building more parking spaces, especially in urban areas, is a bad idea. My problem with this though is that this is in Downtown Brampton, which is a historical city centre and a designated urban growth area. Surface parking here, especially when created by demolishing occupied buildings, just isn't appropriate.​

 

[TOareaFan]

I think people should take Drum's advice and pay a visit to the DT station before making all of these assumptions about what can and should be built there. It is very tight and I think the tightness is compounded by the fact that the buildings/things that make it tight are not all in public hands.

 

[Allandale25]

I think people should take Drum's advice and pay a visit to the DT station before making all of these assumptions about what can and should be built there. It is very tight and I think the tightness is compounded by the fact that the buildings/things that make it tight are not all in public hands.

Happy to read all opinions here. I responded on page 175 just before you. I'm also happy to share what I've seen on documents posted by GO/Metrolinx where they appear to be aware of the proximity of nearby buildings. Or at the very least, haven't ruled anything out yet.

 

[TOareaFan]

Sorry, what's a "PILT"? Thanks for the additional opinion on the office situation. I don't see the need for a scramble. It's not like any construction on the site can happen overnight. There's lots of time for dialogue and I'm sure there are people who try to park at Brampton GO who are happy something might happen.

Payment in Lieu of Taxes.....certain property types/ownership are exempt from paying property taxes to municipalities. Property publicly owned by other levels of government generally are exempt. For example, Pearson Airport is run by a private not for profit....but rather than own the land, they lease it from the government of Canada making the property exempt from property taxes.....so they negotiate a PILT that is meant to compensate the hosting municipality (in this case Mississauga) for the services/costs of having it in their community.

PILT was at the heart of much of the financial dispute around YTZ as well. The people who thought the airport should be paying way more taxes were "valuing" the land on some alternative use and saying it should be paying more. The Port's Authority were saying it should make a PILT in line with other operating airports (using Pearson as the closest example) on a per passenger basis. The courts sided (I believe) with the Port's authority.

Is there any indication that office building would even need to come down? Wouldn't a first step be to pave the open spaces, and leave the office building up and maybe the houses? Even if the houses come down, wouldn't they just keep the office building up? Maybe they could build a parking structure, at the same height, attached and around it.

If nothing is torn down, you would be, essentially, just using the parking lot for the building as it is (already paved and sits empty most days) and you would net (thumb in the air guess) about 40 spots. Given that the office buildings are 4 storey (I think) but 2 of them sit "below grade" relative to Railroad street that add on plan would net a fairly small 2 storey parking structure.

By "They have not, yet, figured out that having a free parking structure south of the tracks will eat into their own parking revenues on the 4 enclosed parking garages they operate" you mean the City of Brampton, right? I guess it'll be interesting to see how much of a issue this is. My understanding is that the City owned parking lots are already undercapacity and free at various times (like the one under City Hall), so I really question how much money the City will loose. Also, even if it does loose money, I'm sure there are people who use the GO train and can't find a place to park who would argue that they'd don't mind.

They are free in the evening and weekends....the city relies on parking revenue from them during the days for some of it's budget....if there is an equally sheltered and always free parking structure, some of that income goes away.

Sean Marshall made a good point about GO and parking (he also grew up in Brampton). I'm sure some will disagree:

Metrolinx bought nine properties in Downtown Brampton, including an office building and at least one rooming house, in order to build another GO Transit parking lot. I've said it before and I'll say it again: GO has a parking problem. And building more parking spaces, especially in urban areas, is a bad idea. My problem with this though is that this is in Downtown Brampton, which is a historical city centre and a designated urban growth area. Surface parking here, especially when created by demolishing occupied buildings, just isn't appropriate.​

That to me is the dilema.....I bet you GO agrees and wishes 100% of their customers took transit/walked/biked to their stations. I bet you, though, they note a co-relation between number of available/free parking spots and usage of the station. So if they are to grow/maintain ridership they believe they need to provide parking....and get to this "lesser of two evils" situation.....do you provide parking and promote use of GO for the longer part of people's commutes/trips/travels or do you limit parking and hope that few people adopt the "if I am going to pay for parking and pay for train, may as well just drive and pay more for parking".

 

[steveintoronto]

TOArea quotes Allandale:
[Sean Marshall made a good point about GO and parking (he also grew up in Brampton). I'm sure some will disagree:
"Metrolinx bought nine properties in Downtown Brampton, including an office building and at least one rooming house, in order to build another GO Transit parking lot. I've said it before and I'll say it again: GO has a parking problem. And building more parking spaces, especially in urban areas, is a bad idea. My problem with this though is that this is in Downtown Brampton, which is a historical city centre and a designated urban growth area. Surface parking here, especially when created by demolishing occupied buildings, just isn't appropriate."]

TO replies:
[That to me is the dilemma.....I bet you GO agrees and wishes 100% of their customers took transit/walked/biked to their stations. I bet you, though, they note a co-relation between number of available/free parking spots and usage of the station. So if they are to grow/maintain ridership they believe they need to provide parking....and get to this "lesser of two evils" situation.....do you provide parking and promote use of GO for the longer part of people's commutes/trips/travels or do you limit parking and hope that few people adopt the "if I am going to pay for parking and pay for train, may as well just drive and pay more for parking"]

Apologies for not using the forum tags to quote, it got complex at the third person, and it's essential to keep quotes attributed. Brampton is far from the only community faced with this dilemma, Guelph is going through much the same, and I'm sure other small cities must be too, as the conundrum for them is to have a 'central' transit centre, at the core of the city, only for that to become a very mixed blessing when it comes to parking that suddenly dominates the very core they wish densified and vital. In Brampton's case, that compounds by the impending LRT routing, still not resolved. I now have some sympathy for the other side of that debate and the consequences of choice.

The more I read the comments here, think about them, look at the maps, read what scant info is available from Metrolinx, and then step back from it all....I have to wonder if the solution is to *not use the existing Brampton Station at all*! MDRejohn's mentioning a 'centre platform' highlights much of the dilemma: You could squeeze three, perhaps even four tracks through that pinch point by flyover...*if* you don't have a station there! Has anyone considered relocating the station? That would also allow the construction of a two track adjacent flyover unhindered by the logistics of keeping a station open and running while building.

It might be very possible that there is no good solution to addressing the present station dilemma. The answer might lie in moving the station further west or perhaps east, and using the present alignment of the platforms to run two added tracks. But Metrolinx is already buying/bought up all that property. Yikes...this might be a catastrophe in the offing.

Can anyone offer a sound reason as to why a new station can't be relocated on a better site to avoid all of the obvious problems of this one? Apologies if someone has already raised this point.

 

[Allandale25]

Has anyone considered relocating the station? That would also allow the construction of a two track adjacent flyover unhindered by the logistics of keeping a station open and running while building.

Yes, Sheet 18 of the HMLRT documents showed the Brampton Station moving back if the third track was put on the north side. I haven't seen any documents suggesting the station move if the track *doesn't* go on the north side. I'll post Sheet 18 later if you haven't seen it. We'll just have to wait an see what happens. The Missing Link and discussions with CN Rail are the biggest variables in this.

Re: "I now have some sympathy for the other side of that debate and the consequences of choice." Sorry, just to better understand, which side do you know have some sympathy for?

 

[TOareaFan]

TOArea quotes Allandale:
Brampton is far from the only community faced with this dilemma, Guelph is going through much the same, and I'm sure other small cities must be too, as the conundrum for them is to have a 'central' transit centre, at the core of the city, only for that to become a very mixed blessing when it comes to parking that suddenly dominates the very core they wish densified and vital.

Not sure the value, to Brampton, in knowing that other communities are dealing with similar issues...unless there is a lesson in how they deal/dealt with them. This is not a misery loves company type issue.

It is a harsh reality that Brampton is a city that has invested a disporportionate amount of its capital into it's small downtown core.....the hope, since I can recall, is that eventually that public investment of funds would bring private investment in the form of residential/office/retail density.....it has not worked...I made the comment last night to the reporter from the guardian that I don't really know what the answer is for downtown Brampton but I can't think of an area which has had such a disporportonate share of a city's investment AND such an imbalance of public and private investment FOR so long a time and that has produced virtually no results.....the market is (and has been) speaking loud and clear on DT Brampton.

The city is not likely to give up and is now faced with the dilema of thinking the next big "public spend" solution is all day 2 way 7 day go trains.....but are getting a bit scared that that comes with losing 2 (maybe 3) existing office buildings with no confidence that they get replaced. So getting to the GO service may take the further way from their real end game goal of intensifying and diversifying the core.

The fact that other communities are dealing with similar issues should not sway them on being concerned about their own.

In Brampton's case, that compounds by the impending LRT routing, still not resolved. I now have some sympathy for the other side of that debate and the consequences of choice.

Also not sure what you mean here.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes, Sheet 18 of the HMLRT documents showed the Brampton Station moving back if the third track was put on the north side. I haven't seen any documents suggesting the station move if the track *doesn't* go on the north side. I'll post Sheet 18 later if you haven't seen it. We'll just have to wait an see what happens. The Missing Link and discussions with CN Rail are the biggest variables in this.

Re: "I now have some sympathy for the other side of that debate and the consequences of choice." Sorry, just to better understand, which side do you know have some sympathy for?

I was thinking at an entirely different location a block or more away, where lateral splaying of a four-track main for platforms is accommodated by level ground.

I was vague on "other side of the argument", my bad. I initially had little sympathy for those insisting that LRT alignment not be Hurontario only. My thought was 'how ridiculous, it's got to go directly to the Brampton Station'. But that is now going soft, the more I realize that Brampton Station may be a 'bridge too far'. I keep staring at the pics and maps, and thinking 'even the Europeans would look at that and say "impractical". I keep getting flashes of the present London Bridge Station rebuilding and track re-alignment of the lead-ins, and they realized doing what is going to be attempted at Brampton (albeit on a micro scale) creates more problems than it cures. I'll study the info more and post finer details later, but at some point, a *total relocation* should be considered for Brampton Station before this goes any further. When you start talking about modifying buildings adjacent (structural engineers would roll their eyes) to accommodate moving tracks and platforms, it becomes easier to just leave well-enough alone at that location, leave the core of Brampton intact, and move down the tracks to start afresh....and do it right.

 

[Allandale25]

The city is not likely to give up and is now faced with the dilema of thinking the next big "public spend" solution is all day 2 way 7 day go trains.....but are getting a bit scared that that comes with losing 2 (maybe 3) existing office buildings with no confidence that they get replaced. So getting to the GO service may take the further way from their real end game goal of intensifying and diversifying the core.

I think that's a very balanced and fair assessment. On one hand, certain Councillors say all-day, two-way GO service is their "number one" priority (over the LRT) but on the other, introducing it to downtown Brampton could bring some changes they didn't expect and some heavy lifting.

 

[steveintoronto]

Not sure the value, to Brampton, in knowing that other communities are dealing with similar issues...unless there is a lesson in how they deal/dealt with them.

The lesson is "you can't do the impossible with the present infrastructure, location and planning, so do it elsewhere". Since Bramalea services Brampton on the east, I'd suggest looking to relocate a facility to the west. That's a quick guesstimation, but there appears to be far too many complications and potential pitfalls with trying to make the present location work. Due to parking issues, Guelph is now regretting not doing what the Brits call a "Parkway" station, at one or both edges of where the track intersects the conurbation limits. Parking and affordable land is plentiful and usually, so is road access, for buses and those that insist on clogging the core in the name of creating a bedroom community thinking it's sophistication.

We see the *hollowing out* of vital centres in the name of "connecting them".

 

[TOareaFan]

^Bramalea is no further south east of DT Brampton than Mt. Pleasant is NW of it.

In a bizarre twist of logic, I would actually like to see GO do an experiment with the DT station. Make all parking subject to a fee and be reserved spots...if no one reserves a spot, it sits open all day....but no more free parking there (direct people if they must drive to the GO and free parking is an issue...that Bramalea and Mt Pleasant have unused free parking spots every day......drop the fares at Brampton, though, to be the lowest in the Brampton group (say, 10% below Bramalea) and see if you really can operate a station with limited parking and none of it free.

 

[rbt]

The city is not likely to give up and is now faced with the dilema of thinking the next big "public spend" solution is all day 2 way 7 day go trains.....but are getting a bit scared that that comes with losing 2 (maybe 3) existing office buildings with no confidence that they get replaced. So getting to the GO service may take the further way from their real end game goal of intensifying and diversifying the core.

GO mentioned it might "provide “flexibility” for a mobility hub at some point in the future."

In 2010 Brampton GO had 1623 trips and today has 932 parking spaces. I'm going to guess there is a very strong correlation between parking spaces and ridership at that station despite all the bus routes leading to it.

Metrolinx might agree to accelerate the mobility hub plans and scale back parking if Brampton was willing to run something other than buses to the station; like some kind of an LRT feeding in ridership from central/northern parts of Mississauga.

Very high-level parking report on this project.
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...t_Rail_Parking_and_Station_Access_Plan_EN.pdf